If she was a single mother of 2, why did she get pregnant again? Was it voluntary or was she raped? Was birth control available to her or not? If so, why did she not use it or did it fail? I think that before I can decide which side I support, I need more information. Is there more available?

Most information I've found is in Polish media. But let me just answer your questions hypothetically, and see if you still aren't sure that you can decide Chuck.

Let's just say that she was not raped. In any case, if she had been, she would have been allowed to have an abortion in Poland.

Birth control is widely available in Poland, so I imagine she had access to it, barring strange and unusual circumstances.

Let's just say, hypothetically, that she simply did not use it.

Your question implies (from my reading) that if all of this is true, she DESERVED to go blind, because she was somehow careless. I reject this conclusion.

If she wanted to get pregnant, you seem to suggest that she shouldn't have wanted to because she was single, and hence should have been prepared to bring up three children blind. Do you think she should have also been forced to have this child if she had not been a single mom? If so, why? Because it would be easier to manage three children blind when you have a husband?

If she didn't want to get pregnant, you seem to suggest that it was her fault for not using birth control, and hence deserves all of the consequences that come with bearing a child, including, in her case, blindness. That's a draconian punishment for such a common mistake, Chuck.

Chuck - would you support gouging out the eyes of all women who do not use birth control? If not, then why do you believe this woman deserved blindness -- because she had the bad luck of getting pregnant? If we're going to do these kinds of things, let's be consistent and not let chance decide.

I think I misread the article. Upon reading it again, it appears to me that she was told she could go blind very shortly after discovering she was pregnant and not after she had the baby (which is how I read it the first time, for some reason) I thought the article was implying that she found out after the birth of her third child and got pregnant a fourth time, even after the warning. This is obviously not the case. I agree that she should have been able to have the abortion, ESPECIALLY in this case. I don't understand why she was refused. However, I do question why she chose to get pregnant or to take the risk of getting pregnant (if she had birth control available) when she already had two kids and was a single mother. It is a very difficult job for a single mom to bring up kids and the single women who do so have my respect. However, being in that situation and choosing to engage in behavior which could only make her situation and that of her existing children worse is irresponsible behavior. If she did not have a choice or if the birth control failed, then she has all of my sympathy. This is why I wanted more information on the situation. If she got herself into the situation by choice (which is not evident in the information so far), then she should have been able to get the abortion, but she should not get much sympathy. I think you read way to much into my questions.

On the point of whether or not the children would be better off with a father, I would say that as a general rule, kids are better off with both a mother and father present as long as it is a loving and caring home for all involved. If it is an abusive situation (physical, mental, or emotional), then such is not the case.

I also didn't know that responsibility for one's actions was "draconian punishment".

Furthermore, I was surprised to learn that not giving a woman an abortion was analogous to "gouging out the eyes of all women who do not use birth control". I didn't know that it was a "consistent" view to see things this way.

Thanks for the peek into your worldview Gustav.

I hope that you're around to tell the kid that he's a "draconian punishment" and that "family values" would have warrented his killing when he gets older. No doubt you view this as the "compassionate" position.

I also didn't know that responsibility for one's actions was "draconian punishment".

That forcing someone to go blind for getting pregnant constitutes "responsibility for ones actions" is also new to me, likwidshoe.

Furthermore, I was surprised to learn that not giving a woman an abortion was analogous to "gouging out the eyes of all women who do not use birth control".

It is not, and I don't say that it is. I say that Chuck's question implies that he believes that women who don't use birth control ought to go blind, since he seems to say that going blind was ultimately "her fault" for getting pregnant. Should all women who get pregnant be prepared to go blind - or just this one because she was unlucky?

Thanks for the peek into your worldview Gustav.

You're welcome. It is my blog after all, and that's what it's for, and presumably, why you came and kept reading.

I hope that you're around to tell the kid that he's a "draconian punishment" and that "family values" would have warrented his killing when he gets older.

The child isn't the punishment likwidshoe, the forced blindness is - and I think you know it. Family Values, in my view, would have warranted allowing the mother to terminate the pregnancy if she wished, because blindness ought not to be the punishment for fornication.